I did. It showed nothing. Unless Screwtape's Dog existed here before, that would be evidence of absence. Screwtape's Dog is not absent. It was never there.

It's there, you just are not looking in the right place. Perhaps you should open your heart to my dog? He responds better. You have to do it sincerely. I mean, really, really sincerely. Like, squeezing your eyes shut and straining (but not so hard you poop). He'll know if you aren't. He'll know if somewhere, deep down you are actually rejecting him. And he only comes to people who truly believe.

We don't have all the facts. A person is allowed to have ideas and attempt to fill in the gaps.

Filling in the gaps without first gaining the knowledge to justify doing so is dishonest, as the gaps remain unfilled despite our protests to the contrary.

"I believe God did X" is not greatly different of a statement from "God did X". They convey the same information. They also imply that the speaker knows enough to justify making the statement. Which is untrue.

I can have the opinion that the universe was created and that is an honest opinion.

Lying to yourself about the state of your own knowledge is not something that concerns me. It is when you convey that lie to others that it becomes the business of others, myself included, since I'm on here just like you are.

I don't care if you agree or not about this issue, and I am not going to discuss it with you any further. Intelligent design is a possibility and that's that.

You don't have the knowledge needed to honestly make that statement. You are pretending to know more than you do. That is dishonest of you. That you do not wish to have it pointed out to you any more isn't especially surprising.

You are just playing a word game. And get over this "dishonest" nonsense. I never lied to anybody here yet or to myself. I never claimed that my opinion was correct. I only claimed that it was one possibility amongst other possibilities.

You are back-tracking. You put your theistic ideas forth as favored possibilities. That means that for some reason you favor them. Is that reason something about the idea (ie. it being more reasonable), or is that reason something about you (eg. childhood conditioning to favor theism)? If the former, then you should stop pretending that you hold such a reason. If the latter, then you should stop pretending that your belief is about anything other than you.

You are back-tracking. You put your theistic ideas forth as favored possibilities. That means that for some reason you favor them. Is that reason something about the idea (ie. it being more reasonable), or is that reason something about you (eg. childhood conditioning to favor theism)? If the former, then you should stop pretending that you hold such a reason. If the latter, then you should stop pretending that your belief is about anything other than you.

My belief certainly does involve me. I do not deny that. However it is you who are being dishonest. I had NO childhood conditioning that caused me to become a theist. Mum dragging me to Church every Sunday actually caused me to be an atheist for some time. And I am not pretending that I hold such a reason. I had an experience that let be to lean towards theism. However that is for another thread. We are WAY OFF TOPIC here.

I am not pretending to be anything and I am finished discussing it with you.

That's why I said "eg." instead of "ie." for that part. I was giving an example, to explain the sort of thing I was getting at.

And this after you implored me to read your posts...

Look, all I did was ask if you did...and it was dripping with sarcasm. I just get this feeling that you are trying to purposely anger me. I'm not into that, and this "dishonest" crap has to stop man. I am well aware that my opinions could be totally wrong. Okay?

I mean what I'm saying genuinely. It's not to get you angry. I'm not always honest either. Often I'm negligently dishonest in what I say. So is everyone. Being disciplined in how and whether we make statements on topics is something I feel we should all strive for.

If we would like to find one idea to fill our ignorance over another idea, then let's be honest about it and just say that we like it. That's a statement about our own preferences, and we're authorities on our own preferences. Right?

If we would like to find one idea to fill our ignorance over another idea, then let's be honest about it and just say that we like it. That's a statement about our own preferences, and we're authorities on our own preferences. Right?

Of course I like my preferences. I like the idea that God may exist over the alternative. There is nothing dishonest about that. My opinion about it is not dishonest either. My choice to have that opinion is not dishonest as well..

Then the charge of dishonesty may not be warranted after all. Then again, I was unaware that such a reason existed, and your insistence on it being "just your opinion" suggested that the reason either didn't exist or was pretty weak.

It is of course fine to have an opinion about a god existing. Postive or negative. However, if you think there is a god and then use misunderstandings and simplistic over generalizations about science to back up your opinion, you end up sounding kind of silly.

Says you. I never said that I was here to prove anything. Ever.

I didn't use the word "prove" in my comment. I was talking about some of the things you have said that are so far off base its ridiculous. Such as:

As far as "Nessy" goes, who is to say that we have discovered all of the lifeforms on earth. The same could be said about Bigfoot, although I don't know how we could miss something so large, considering the technology of today. But... new species are being discovered quite often. And since life begets life... it is logical to assume that all life spawned from the original source of life.

What's wrong with that, you ask? The problem is that it shows that you are not even casually acquainted with current biology. When you asked "who is to say that we have discovered all the lifeforms on earth", you don't seem to be aware of the fact that we discover around 20,000 new species every year. You are clearly aware that new species are possible, but your argument is not based on reality, but just something you made up in your head. Yes, you do add that "new species are being discovered quite often". But since you asked the "who is to say" question", you asked it like new species were not really all that common, so your addendum seems to indicate that you think that just a few new ones might be discovered occasionally.

Am I being nitpicky? Yep. But I have to be when people are making blanket statements based on opinion, rather than reality.

It is bad enough when people fill the gaps in human knowledge with their god and say that his existence is the only explanation. But when people fill their ignorance with their god, it gets embarrassing.

Funny. I don't feel embarrassed at all. And what ignorance are you referring to? I honestly don't care if you feel I disgraced myself or not. That would be your opinion.

If you are not inspired to learn enough about science to argue against it cogently, you might try sticking to moral issues and and leave the physical world alone. You are not helping your cause otherwise.

When did I argue against science? Strawman much?

Well, perhaps "against" was the wrong word. I probably should have worked "distain" in there instead. I was commenting on this particular post:

Because is appears that everything that has a beginning in this universe has an end. Therefore whatever/whoever created the universe would have to be infinite. If the universe had a beginning, which most scientists say it did, something had to be the catalyst to cause it to exist. Something just cannot start on it's own unless something else forces it to do so.

Your statement "Therefore whatever/whoever created the universe would have to be infinite" is an assumption that you are wording as if it is a fact. It may be, but we don't know that. That "we" includes you. You appear to be going through the standard believer routine of being incredulous that something could appear out of nothing. Complete nothing. Yet that is one of the possible scenarios. In other words, you know nothing about nothing, and that is a shortcoming.

Again, you are allowed to believe that god did all this stuff, but you shouldn't be tossing in science that you don't understand very well as proof of said god. Your blanket statement in this case did not impress.

It is the job of science to explore, discover, invent and theorize, among other things. It is an ongoing process that will never be able to discover everything. Religion takes it upon itself to tell us it has all the important answers already. Which would be less of a problem if any of the religious explanations matched reality in useful quantities. They don't. I tend to assume that Christians and muslims in particular are very interested in there being an afterlife, and they seem forced by their hopes to mold this life in such a way that it end up looking consistent with said afterlife. Dissing science is one tactic of believers. And most practice what they preach by not knowing diddley about it.

I never "dissed" science at all. Why are you bringing this up to me? Please don't use your prejudice to assume that I am like all the rest.

I haven't seen any sign that you respect science, so I used "diss" to describe your attitude. If I am wrong, you need merely make sure your statements about science reflect a basic knowledge of the subject at hand. Right now you sound like someone who may, and I stress the word may, have rushed through a wikipedia article or two before posting.

I would love there to be some sort of afterlife that I could enjoy. The ill-defined christian heaven holds no appeal, but if after death I could continue on in some other form and enjoy the universe a bit more, I'd love it. However, my hopes for such things, my opinion that there should be an afterlife, are completely irrelevant because they do not match anything we know about death. Hence I ignore my hopes because I know there is nothing to base them on.

The ill defined definition of Christian heaven is one of the reasons I have a tendency to lean towards Christianity in my theism. How can something unearthly be described in a way in which we could comprehend when we have no reference to base it on? Christ described it as paradise to one of the poor buggers hanging next to Him during the crucifixion. Whatever it is, it must be pretty good, that is if it exists at all.

See, that didn't hurt, did it. You said something about your beliefs without tossing in misunderstood science to back yourself up. That's what I have been hoping for.

As Azdgari said a few posts back, the universe is not subject to your opinion. Nor is it subject to mine or anyone else's. Through science, we humans do our best to take biases out of the picture as we search for truth. (I don't for a second claim that science is without any bias. Scientists exist within cultures, and said cultures have remarkable power over individuals and institutions. But science does what it can to minimize such influences. ) Religions must, by their very nature, keep their own biases on the front line of the debate and spend most of their time insisting they are truths. They even go so far as to claim that the lack of proof is in and of itself proof that something powerful and intelligent is responsible for the universe.

Lack of proof is not proof. The universe either had a sentient creator or it did not. I don't dismiss science and I hope it does indeed one day discover how the universe was formed. Eventually it may. The problem with science however is that it can only go back to the starting point of the universe. Anything before that would be impossible to prove. Science can hypothesize, but that is all it can really accomplish regarding this.

Not necessarily true. Physicists are looking at the possibility that some of the movement in our universe is caused by other universes tugging on it. And they feel confident that if that is the case, they can show evidence for it. They are also exploring the possibility that black holes form new universes, and are looking into that. If they can convincingly demonstrate that to be the case, then they don't have to look back in our universe to see how it was formed. They would only need to look at black holes in our universe to see how they formed other ones. This is of course currently conjecture (though strongly backed by mathematics), but your use of the blanket statement "impossible to prove" was out of place.

I personally prefer to go where the evidence takes us, even if it means that I don't get to comfort myself in my old age about a pending "streets of gold" experience. The pursuit of truth is far more important to me than is fooling myself for my own convenience.

That's great. You go ahead and do that. I do not dismiss scientific truth either. Peace.

We don't have all the facts. A person is allowed to have ideas and attempt to fill in the gaps. Are you saying that what we don't know about the universe doesn't exist? I can have the opinion that the universe was created and that is an honest opinion. I don't care if you agree or not about this issue, and I am not going to discuss it with you any further. Intelligent design is a possibility and that's that.

Yep, people are allowed to have ideas and fill in the gaps, but it becomes harmful if they start believing what they have made up. And the way you word your posts, it often sounds like that is the case with you. I too have opinions and ideas about the universe, but I don't for a second think that any of them are accurate, because, if for no other reason, I don't think I my brain is capable of coming up with anything fantastic enough to be right. I do it for fun, not for philosophical justification.

The effect of making up your own science is the same as dismissing the real thing. That you politely mix real science with your own opinions does not make the outcome much better.

I was suggesting that you be careful with your statements about science, because you are not demonstrating a high level of proficiency, yet you are basing some of your philosophical stances on your assumptions. That is a bad idea.

For you, for me, for anyone, being wrong is problem enough. Being wrong for bad reasons is worse.

We're obviously going to disagree about everything, but what fun would a discussion forum be without such things.

One of the problems/interesting things that we have to deal with around here are the myriad versions of various christian concepts, like hell and heaven and the historicity of Jesus and the flood and stuff like that. And hence, when a new christian shows up with his or her point of view, we have to spend a little white eking out their individual and usually very customized versions of said religion. As an example, we get christians here who say there isn't really a hell, and others who say hell is a place you go for awhile, but not forever, and others say you go there but it so hot you won't survive long. You get the idea. Lots of individual interpretations. So if you are going to join in on our conversations (and I hope you do) please realize that short little statements like the one you made above are very uninformative if not accompanied by enough detail. We need to be able to flesh out why we disagree with you, and terse statements are not very useful in that regard.

You are unique, lux. Just like every other christian we've had show up here. Because no two have been alike in their interpretation of the bible. Some show up sounding like fundamentalists then they tell us they don't believe the flood ever happened, while others seem quite liberal in those areas but they come down hard on the hell story. And all that confusion, caused by christian participants who do not detail their version of christianity soon enough and we atheists who jump to conclusions because we erroneously assume the christian B is just like christian A because both sort of define hell or the flood or the importance of John the Baptist in similar ways.

This is just a heads up. You can do with it as you wish. I, of course, assume that there is no hell because there is no god and hence cannot take the subject of this thread seriously. But the subject of christians customizing their religion in infinite ways? That I can take seriously.

That is true in the same sense than neither position about the flatness or roundness of the Earth can be proven, as a matter of absolute logical deduction. However, the nonexistence of particular gods, or sub-sets of gods, is pretty conclusively demonstrated.

That is true in the same sense than neither position about the flatness or roundness of the Earth can be proven, as a matter of absolute logical deduction. However, the nonexistence of particular gods, or sub-sets of gods, is pretty conclusively demonstrated.

Neither of which is the topic of this thread, of course.

The flatness and roundness of the earth are both descriptors. Everyone uses flat descriptors in modern day just as they did in the past. There is nothing in our modern language that even suggests the earth is round. Airplane pilots or boat captains don't use globes for navigating.

1 Then the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, 2 “This shall be the law of the leper for the day of his cleansing. He shall be brought to the priest. 3 And the priest shall go out of the camp, and the priest shall examine him; and indeed, if the leprosy is healed in the leper, 4 then the priest shall command to take for him who is to be cleansed two living and clean birds, cedar wood, scarlet, and hyssop. 5 And the priest shall command that one of the birds be killed in an earthen vessel over running water. 6 As for the living bird, he shall take it, the cedar wood and the scarlet and the hyssop, and dip them and the living bird in the blood of the bird that was killed over the running water. 7 And he shall sprinkle it seven times on him who is to be cleansed from the leprosy, and shall pronounce him clean, and shall let the living bird loose in the open field. 8 He who is to be cleansed shall wash his clothes, shave off all his hair, and wash himself in water, that he may be clean. After that he shall come into the camp, and shall stay outside his tent seven days. 9 But on the seventh day he shall shave all the hair off his head and his beard and his eyebrows—all his hair he shall shave off. He shall wash his clothes and wash his body in water, and he shall be clean.

10 “And on the eighth day he shall take two male lambs without blemish, one ewe lamb of the first year without blemish, three-tenths of an ephah of fine flour mixed with oil as a grain offering, and one log of oil. 11 Then the priest who makes him clean shall present the man who is to be made clean, and those things, before the Lord, at the door of the tabernacle of meeting. 12 And the priest shall take one male lamb and offer it as a trespass offering, and the log of oil, and wave them as a wave offering before the Lord. 13 Then he shall kill the lamb in the place where he kills the sin offering and the burnt offering, in a holy place; for as the sin offering is the priest’s, so is the trespass offering. It is most holy. 14 The priest shall take some of the blood of the trespass offering, and the priest shall put it on the tip of the right ear of him who is to be cleansed, on the thumb of his right hand, and on the big toe of his right foot. 15 And the priest shall take some of the log of oil, and pour it into the palm of his own left hand. 16 Then the priest shall dip his right finger in the oil that is in his left hand, and shall sprinkle some of the oil with his finger seven times before the Lord. 17 And of the rest of the oil in his hand, the priest shall put some on the tip of the right ear of him who is to be cleansed, on the thumb of his right hand, and on the big toe of his right foot, on the blood of the trespass offering. 18 The rest of the oil that is in the priest’s hand he shall put on the head of him who is to be cleansed. So the priest shall make atonement for him before the Lord.

That all sounds totally practical hey? Folks that was GOD SPEAKING to Moses

1 Then the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, 2 “This shall be the law of the leper for the day of his cleansing. He shall be brought to the priest. 3 And the priest shall go out of the camp, and the priest shall examine him; and indeed, if the leprosy is healed in the leper, 4 then the priest shall command to take for him who is to be cleansed two living and clean birds, cedar wood, scarlet, and hyssop. 5 And the priest shall command that one of the birds be killed in an earthen vessel over running water. 6 As for the living bird, he shall take it, the cedar wood and the scarlet and the hyssop, and dip them and the living bird in the blood of the bird that was killed over the running water. 7 And he shall sprinkle it seven times on him who is to be cleansed from the leprosy, and shall pronounce him clean, and shall let the living bird loose in the open field. 8 He who is to be cleansed shall wash his clothes, shave off all his hair, and wash himself in water, that he may be clean. After that he shall come into the camp, and shall stay outside his tent seven days. 9 But on the seventh day he shall shave all the hair off his head and his beard and his eyebrows—all his hair he shall shave off. He shall wash his clothes and wash his body in water, and he shall be clean.

10 “And on the eighth day he shall take two male lambs without blemish, one ewe lamb of the first year without blemish, three-tenths of an ephah of fine flour mixed with oil as a grain offering, and one log of oil. 11 Then the priest who makes him clean shall present the man who is to be made clean, and those things, before the Lord, at the door of the tabernacle of meeting. 12 And the priest shall take one male lamb and offer it as a trespass offering, and the log of oil, and wave them as a wave offering before the Lord. 13 Then he shall kill the lamb in the place where he kills the sin offering and the burnt offering, in a holy place; for as the sin offering is the priest’s, so is the trespass offering. It is most holy. 14 The priest shall take some of the blood of the trespass offering, and the priest shall put it on the tip of the right ear of him who is to be cleansed, on the thumb of his right hand, and on the big toe of his right foot. 15 And the priest shall take some of the log of oil, and pour it into the palm of his own left hand. 16 Then the priest shall dip his right finger in the oil that is in his left hand, and shall sprinkle some of the oil with his finger seven times before the Lord. 17 And of the rest of the oil in his hand, the priest shall put some on the tip of the right ear of him who is to be cleansed, on the thumb of his right hand, and on the big toe of his right foot, on the blood of the trespass offering. 18 The rest of the oil that is in the priest’s hand he shall put on the head of him who is to be cleansed. So the priest shall make atonement for him before the Lord.

That all sounds totally practical hey? Folks that was GOD SPEAKING to Moses

This all seems perfectly reasonable to me. William? How do YOU deal with lepers?

You just follow the instructions. The birds, the blood, the ceder wood and hyssop, 7 sprinkles, unblemished lambs, the trespass offering, the right thumb, the big toe, the left palm, 7 more sprinkles.

I'm pretty sure that the CDC makes the same recommendations, and are equally clear about the proper procedures.

My belief certainly does involve me. I do not deny that. However it is you who are being dishonest. I had NO childhood conditioning that caused me to become a theist. Mum dragging me to Church every Sunday actually caused me to be an atheist for some time. And I am not pretending that I hold such a reason. I had an experience that let be to lean towards theism. However that is for another thread. We are WAY OFF TOPIC here.

I am not pretending to be anything and I am finished discussing it with you.

Because this looks as though it might have gotten lost in the shuffle...

Walking Death, don't you see how this works? Yes, you rebelled against going to church. Let's face it, for most denominations, it's probably not something kids are going to be particularly drawn to. And kids are pretty much wired to rebel against their parents during adolescence anyway. So, yeah, it's not at all uncommon to see them straying away, either for a short while or for a longer one. Or forever, for that matter. Some do break free.

But many, probably most, are still influenced by the beliefs of their parents. Whether they want it to or mean it to, that indoctrination seeps into their unconscious, and it takes a real force of will to separate it from fact when you, in your turn, get old enough to start pondering your own mortality.

However you felt about being forced to attend services in your youth, those are going to be the first messages which come to the surface when you begin searching for life's meanings, or answers as to an afterlife. You learned them when you were still totally credulous, and the fact that you questioned them at some point doesn't mean that they are not still as much a part of your makeup as any other nostalgia. It's comforting to retreat to those beliefs when you start to really experience your own insignificance in the universe.

That does not make them true, or even more likely than the beliefs of anyone else who retreated to what they were taught when they were young.